|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Greenhouse levy on international flights
From NEWS.COM.AU:
Quote:
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Like any industry which pollutes the cost should be built into the product price, not added on as a tax or levy. The reason for this is by adding a levy you offer no encouragement for the reduction of pollution and the company does not pay through the balance sheet, the consumer does.
When pay to pollute is part of the product cost it is seen as any other cost which provides the ability for a polluting company to reduce this expense to become competitive. While administratively a levy might been seen as easier it hides the true cost of pollution from shareholders. Pay to pollute then sees pollution as the expense, rather than remediation as the expense so it becomes profitable not to pollute, rather than a cost to clean up after. Pay to pollute also treats each industry in the same manner, rather than targeting (unfairly) one industry over another (such as airlines versus cruise liners or road transport). |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
I agree - it's a similar issue with fuel surcharges - there are an integral element of the airlines operating costs , not an external fee. They should be built into ticket prices rather than "government fees, taxes and surcharges" - when the fuel surcharge is the largest of these and little or nothing to do with governments.
Kent |
|
|